Please begin by reading Robert Zubrin’s essay, The Case for Nuclear Power. All comments and questions are welcome—you need not be firmly for or against the proposition—but they must be relevant to it. Here is a master list of logical fallacies: Indulging in any of them will knock five points off your score. (Possible total score: 100.)
For a change, we’ve decided to open this thread to people who don’t subscribe to CG. Only subscribers, however, will be eligible for the Grand Prize (and it will be very grand indeed).
Since brevity is the soul of wit, I thought it appropriate to post my basic opinion in stand-alone form. My further thoughts are as follows:
This is not an either-or proposition: nuclear v. renewables. A practical energy policy might well specify for the latter a supporting role. It surely would be no more prudent to place total reliance on nuclear power that it would be to place it on wind and solar power.
Nuclear power tests the Greens’ sincerity. If they really are dedicated to “fighting climate change,” a broad-scale shift to nuclear power is the most practical means of doing so—technologically, economically and politically. If the Greens dispute that, I for one will feel justified in my suspicions concerning their true motives.
The United States with its abundant reserves of relatively clean-burning natural gas is in a good position to manage a gradual shift to nuclear power, with minimum economic and political disruption—in sharp contrast to the Green New Deal. Why should America rely on GND unicorn dust when it has a practical alternative available?
Aesthetics matter. There are few things uglier than a big wind farm or solar panel array. Full reliance on renewal energy would require vast tracts of land to be converted into energy factories: the grim satanic mills of the Green Revolution. In my opinion, we should avoid doing so if at all possible.
Mr. Zubrin is obviously correct. Nuclear power is a proven technology with an excellent safety and environmental record that is quite capable of supplying our civilization with the energy it needs. On the other hand, the case for so-called renewables rests on a set of speculative premisses, seasoned with a big pinch of wishful thinking.
I see Zubrin’s point about the anti nuclear lobby. Obama was pretty good at kicking cans down the road for someone else to solve, like nuclear repositories and Iranian nuclear treaties. But I think the bigger challenge for nuclear is the regulatory regime.
In the US and Canada, it’s a mess. Well intentioned and competent fabricators and contractors struggle to unravel and determine what is required. Codes and regulatory guides take decades to be updated. I have worked on Vogtle (the only plant under construction in NA since Three Mile Is) and I have visited the identical design being built in China. There was a world of difference in schedule and approach.
I recall attending a conference with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a panel discussion where one member, unbidden, declared that it was the best regulator in the world. If that’s not hubris.......
Yes the CCP is evil and they may be cutting corners but we could do much better. What I saw there was a professional, safety conscious and technically advanced project being completed in a fraction of the time.
So yes nuclear power is a solution if we want to make it one.
I’m not sure this is the “debate forum” or just the comments section for this latest article on Nuclear Energy. Nevertheless, I’ll post my comments here.
First, I am a proponent of nuclear energy. The demand for reliable electricity will only increase as more and more electric vehicles come on line.
Second, I concur that fossil fuel carbon emissions should decrease for the many reasons that have been outlined over the last several days. The industrial revolution has (with little doubt) sped up the natural occurring warming cycle the earth has been experiencing over the last 15,000 years. We must do what we can, and be smart about it, not reactionary.
Third, solar and wind and hydro all have their place; however, the need for batteries and their components to provide electrical storage and continuity, make the total positive environmental effect suspect, and in need of rigorous scientific study. (Personally from my experience living off the grid, wind and solar always require an on site fossil fuel generator to fill in the energy gaps).
Finally, I spent over two years working on a permanent nuclear waste repository site back during the Reagan administration. Many areas around the country were being scientifically evaluated for safety and practicality. All the proposed locations were geographically isolated, and far from human population centers. The specific site I worked on was the subterranean salt formations in the Panhandle of Texas. Huge mine shafts were drilled and as well as many smaller exploratory cores. Although, it was an interesting study and much data gathered, it soon became apparent that any decision about a permanent waste site would be based on politics not science. I left the project before it’s completion but continued to follow its progress through friends and reports in the media.
Eventually, the funding dried up and the most distant, isolated, location was chosen in Nevada. Nevertheless, Senator Harry Reid used his power and influence to have President Obama cancel the project.
Conclusion, everybody wants electricity but no one wants the plant, waste products, wind and/or solar farms in their backyard. I’ve concluded nuclear power is our best chance out of this energy matrix. But until endless regulatory and environmental battles can be modulated and curtailed, I am disheartened, and increasingly cynical, that any real progress will be made.
In the end, we really are in control of nothing. But we must try. Why? Because that’s what we do with this large evolved brain. We can’t help it. A large asteroid could strike the earth and wipe us all out. This generally accepted theory as to one of the earths great extinction events was only in its infancy during my undergraduate days. The prevailing wisdom at the time was gradual environmental and evolutionary change. Now it seems that rapid change can, and does, occur after perhaps millennia of relative quiet. (Lots of minus points I know).
I am still trying to figure out what I want to say in this forum. Myself after having my second Covid shot on Thursday I went out for a really nice lunch along the New Hampshire Seacoast not far from the infamous Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant over the past few hours. So I at least can say I am putting my money were my mouth is with regards to nuclear power.
Something though I can't seem to figure out is whether this is a discussion about the world at large or just Europe? Whenever I bring up examples outside of Europe Ronald, Ben, and Alex seem to keep coming back at me saying that what happens outside of Europe is irrelevant to the discussion. I can't seem to figure out if this is the Cosmopolitan Europeanist or the Cosmopolitan Globalist.
I think Zubrin is correct. An increasing standard of living requires energy, and lots of it. While I agree that solar power has come a long way, and should be part of the solution, I am not convinced it will stand up to the increasing needs the way nuclear energy can and should. Keep in mind, I work for a company that is the largest manufacturer of industrial batteries in the world. I have a vested interest (literally) in a world that needs batteries. I think we always will, regardless of the source of baseload electricity. I think that if every home, everywhere, were powered by cheap and clean nuclear energy, there would be no need for solar power at all.
That said, I am not sure how we get that case across to policy makers. "Green" energy is chic. It can be done well, in fact my company has been working on smart inverter products that help homeowners reduce reliance on the grid. I think that affordable, small scale solar installations that are "behind the meter" and include storage can do a lot in the short term to alleviate reliance on dirty fossil fuels. I think that if we make these systems pay for themselves, we can have short term success. At my last calculation, such a system for my own home would be a net break even, paying for itself just as it needs to be replaced. Someday soon, I think, we'll be able to justify these costs.
While I agree w Mr. Zubrin that nuclear power production is operationally very safe, I remain against nuclear power because the waste problem is not solved. I do have some background on the subject but it is just grad school research on the history of the waste question. So, an overview of the sweep of the questions and the maneuvers/responses. Nevada was the least problematic geologically but the site design would not hold the current (as of about 10-15 years ago) inventory of waste so was not in itself a complete solution. The U.S. government has been studying the disposal problem for decades. A place to start in the disposal lit review is with: National Research Council, Committee on Waste Disposal, The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land, (Washington: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1957.
The researchers saw the problems in the 1950s and never devoted much in the way of prioritized R&D into the disposal problem. Geologic storage was one fashion and of the initial proposals for a number of sites, the then politically-weak Nevada was left standing in the disposal site NIMBY game of musical chairs. The Savannah, GA MOX project was at times promising but the tech solution never adequately matured. The WIPP in NM continues as a pilot but geologic storage in salt deposits, while better than most geologic storage solutions in many ways, is not problem-free.
From an accounting and moral perspective, on-site storage at production facilities closely associates the risk with the reward. This is a terrible solution but I believe that overall it remains "the best" in a cost-benefit sense. Certainly not a security and safety sense.
In my view, the new enthusiasm for nuclear power is a swing-for-the-fences attempt at the pill-theory of problem solving. Given the decades of hype about the peaceful atom, I'll remain highly skeptical until the technical evidence begins to outweigh the tech hype. And on the green tech hype questions, I am not a fan of solar - hell of an environmental footprint/impact across the full lifecyle.
The obvious retort is, Well, Dave, what is your solution? I have seriously studied this question for decades and I don't have a good answer other than getting off of coal and converting as much as possible to nat gas and wind but also getting away from solar as much as possible is a better answer than coal - I live in a city which is powered by awful ignite plants and would love to see this end asap.
Solve the waste problem for nuclear and I am onboard.
Since brevity is the soul of wit, I thought it appropriate to post my basic opinion in stand-alone form. My further thoughts are as follows:
This is not an either-or proposition: nuclear v. renewables. A practical energy policy might well specify for the latter a supporting role. It surely would be no more prudent to place total reliance on nuclear power that it would be to place it on wind and solar power.
Nuclear power tests the Greens’ sincerity. If they really are dedicated to “fighting climate change,” a broad-scale shift to nuclear power is the most practical means of doing so—technologically, economically and politically. If the Greens dispute that, I for one will feel justified in my suspicions concerning their true motives.
The United States with its abundant reserves of relatively clean-burning natural gas is in a good position to manage a gradual shift to nuclear power, with minimum economic and political disruption—in sharp contrast to the Green New Deal. Why should America rely on GND unicorn dust when it has a practical alternative available?
Aesthetics matter. There are few things uglier than a big wind farm or solar panel array. Full reliance on renewal energy would require vast tracts of land to be converted into energy factories: the grim satanic mills of the Green Revolution. In my opinion, we should avoid doing so if at all possible.
Mr. Zubrin is obviously correct. Nuclear power is a proven technology with an excellent safety and environmental record that is quite capable of supplying our civilization with the energy it needs. On the other hand, the case for so-called renewables rests on a set of speculative premisses, seasoned with a big pinch of wishful thinking.
I see Zubrin’s point about the anti nuclear lobby. Obama was pretty good at kicking cans down the road for someone else to solve, like nuclear repositories and Iranian nuclear treaties. But I think the bigger challenge for nuclear is the regulatory regime.
In the US and Canada, it’s a mess. Well intentioned and competent fabricators and contractors struggle to unravel and determine what is required. Codes and regulatory guides take decades to be updated. I have worked on Vogtle (the only plant under construction in NA since Three Mile Is) and I have visited the identical design being built in China. There was a world of difference in schedule and approach.
I recall attending a conference with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a panel discussion where one member, unbidden, declared that it was the best regulator in the world. If that’s not hubris.......
Yes the CCP is evil and they may be cutting corners but we could do much better. What I saw there was a professional, safety conscious and technically advanced project being completed in a fraction of the time.
So yes nuclear power is a solution if we want to make it one.
Sterling Thomas7 min ago
I’m not sure this is the “debate forum” or just the comments section for this latest article on Nuclear Energy. Nevertheless, I’ll post my comments here.
First, I am a proponent of nuclear energy. The demand for reliable electricity will only increase as more and more electric vehicles come on line.
Second, I concur that fossil fuel carbon emissions should decrease for the many reasons that have been outlined over the last several days. The industrial revolution has (with little doubt) sped up the natural occurring warming cycle the earth has been experiencing over the last 15,000 years. We must do what we can, and be smart about it, not reactionary.
Third, solar and wind and hydro all have their place; however, the need for batteries and their components to provide electrical storage and continuity, make the total positive environmental effect suspect, and in need of rigorous scientific study. (Personally from my experience living off the grid, wind and solar always require an on site fossil fuel generator to fill in the energy gaps).
Finally, I spent over two years working on a permanent nuclear waste repository site back during the Reagan administration. Many areas around the country were being scientifically evaluated for safety and practicality. All the proposed locations were geographically isolated, and far from human population centers. The specific site I worked on was the subterranean salt formations in the Panhandle of Texas. Huge mine shafts were drilled and as well as many smaller exploratory cores. Although, it was an interesting study and much data gathered, it soon became apparent that any decision about a permanent waste site would be based on politics not science. I left the project before it’s completion but continued to follow its progress through friends and reports in the media.
Eventually, the funding dried up and the most distant, isolated, location was chosen in Nevada. Nevertheless, Senator Harry Reid used his power and influence to have President Obama cancel the project.
Conclusion, everybody wants electricity but no one wants the plant, waste products, wind and/or solar farms in their backyard. I’ve concluded nuclear power is our best chance out of this energy matrix. But until endless regulatory and environmental battles can be modulated and curtailed, I am disheartened, and increasingly cynical, that any real progress will be made.
In the end, we really are in control of nothing. But we must try. Why? Because that’s what we do with this large evolved brain. We can’t help it. A large asteroid could strike the earth and wipe us all out. This generally accepted theory as to one of the earths great extinction events was only in its infancy during my undergraduate days. The prevailing wisdom at the time was gradual environmental and evolutionary change. Now it seems that rapid change can, and does, occur after perhaps millennia of relative quiet. (Lots of minus points I know).
Aux armes, citoyens !!!
I am still trying to figure out what I want to say in this forum. Myself after having my second Covid shot on Thursday I went out for a really nice lunch along the New Hampshire Seacoast not far from the infamous Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant over the past few hours. So I at least can say I am putting my money were my mouth is with regards to nuclear power.
Something though I can't seem to figure out is whether this is a discussion about the world at large or just Europe? Whenever I bring up examples outside of Europe Ronald, Ben, and Alex seem to keep coming back at me saying that what happens outside of Europe is irrelevant to the discussion. I can't seem to figure out if this is the Cosmopolitan Europeanist or the Cosmopolitan Globalist.
I think Zubrin is correct. An increasing standard of living requires energy, and lots of it. While I agree that solar power has come a long way, and should be part of the solution, I am not convinced it will stand up to the increasing needs the way nuclear energy can and should. Keep in mind, I work for a company that is the largest manufacturer of industrial batteries in the world. I have a vested interest (literally) in a world that needs batteries. I think we always will, regardless of the source of baseload electricity. I think that if every home, everywhere, were powered by cheap and clean nuclear energy, there would be no need for solar power at all.
That said, I am not sure how we get that case across to policy makers. "Green" energy is chic. It can be done well, in fact my company has been working on smart inverter products that help homeowners reduce reliance on the grid. I think that affordable, small scale solar installations that are "behind the meter" and include storage can do a lot in the short term to alleviate reliance on dirty fossil fuels. I think that if we make these systems pay for themselves, we can have short term success. At my last calculation, such a system for my own home would be a net break even, paying for itself just as it needs to be replaced. Someday soon, I think, we'll be able to justify these costs.
Claire,
While I agree w Mr. Zubrin that nuclear power production is operationally very safe, I remain against nuclear power because the waste problem is not solved. I do have some background on the subject but it is just grad school research on the history of the waste question. So, an overview of the sweep of the questions and the maneuvers/responses. Nevada was the least problematic geologically but the site design would not hold the current (as of about 10-15 years ago) inventory of waste so was not in itself a complete solution. The U.S. government has been studying the disposal problem for decades. A place to start in the disposal lit review is with: National Research Council, Committee on Waste Disposal, The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land, (Washington: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1957.
The researchers saw the problems in the 1950s and never devoted much in the way of prioritized R&D into the disposal problem. Geologic storage was one fashion and of the initial proposals for a number of sites, the then politically-weak Nevada was left standing in the disposal site NIMBY game of musical chairs. The Savannah, GA MOX project was at times promising but the tech solution never adequately matured. The WIPP in NM continues as a pilot but geologic storage in salt deposits, while better than most geologic storage solutions in many ways, is not problem-free.
From an accounting and moral perspective, on-site storage at production facilities closely associates the risk with the reward. This is a terrible solution but I believe that overall it remains "the best" in a cost-benefit sense. Certainly not a security and safety sense.
In my view, the new enthusiasm for nuclear power is a swing-for-the-fences attempt at the pill-theory of problem solving. Given the decades of hype about the peaceful atom, I'll remain highly skeptical until the technical evidence begins to outweigh the tech hype. And on the green tech hype questions, I am not a fan of solar - hell of an environmental footprint/impact across the full lifecyle.
The obvious retort is, Well, Dave, what is your solution? I have seriously studied this question for decades and I don't have a good answer other than getting off of coal and converting as much as possible to nat gas and wind but also getting away from solar as much as possible is a better answer than coal - I live in a city which is powered by awful ignite plants and would love to see this end asap.
Solve the waste problem for nuclear and I am onboard.
Best/Dave
Since the proposition itself is a form of "your" actions have consequences fallacy, the whole debate is illogical.
Proposition also assume, a priori, that there can only be one result from the claimed mattering, which further fails logic.
Eric Hines